2011 International Nuclear Atlantic Conference - INAC 2011 released for publication

Belo Horizonte,MG, Brazil, October 24-28, 2011

ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE ENERGIA NUCLEAR - ABEN
ISBN: 978-85-99141-04-5

ASME STRESS LINEARIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION – A

DISCUSSION BASED ON A CASE STUDY

Carlos A. de J. Miranda1, Altair A. Faloppa2, Miguel Mattar Neto3, Gerson Fainer4

1,2,3,4
Instituto de Pesquisas Energéticas e Nucleares (IPEN / CNEN - SP)
Av. Professor Lineu Prestes 2242
05508-000 São Paulo, SP
cmiranda@ipen.br1, afaloppa@ipen.br2, mmattar@ipen.br3, gfainer@ipen.br4

ABSTRACT

The ASME code, specially in its Nuclear Division (Subsection NB – Class I Components), gives some
recommendations to the structural analyst on how to perform the verifications required to prove the design as
good as the by-analysis prevented failures modes. Each of these failure modes has specific stress limits which
are established based on simple but conservative hypothesis like the material perfectly plastic behavior and the
shell theory with its typical membrane and bending stresses with linear distribution along the thickness. Other
detail to keep in mind is the code distinction between primary and secondary stresses (respectively, stress that
came due to equilibrium and due to displacement compatibility). In general, the numerical models used in the
analyses are developed with plane or 3D solid elements and due this fact no direct comparison with the code
limits can be done and, besides that, the programs do not distinguish between primary and secondary stresses.
Mostly, the later are produced due to the temperature variation but they also appear near discontinuities.
Sometimes, this classification is not so clear or direct. To perform the required ASME Code verifications the
analyst should obtain the membrane and bending stresses from the plane or 3-D model which is called stress
linearization and, also, should classify them as primary and secondary. (The excess between the maximum
stress at a point and the sum of these linearized values is called peak stress and is included in the fatigue
verification.) This task, most of the time is not a simple one due to the nature of the involved load and/or the
complex geometry under analysis. In fact, there are several studies discussing on how to perform these stress
classification and linearization. The present paper shows a discussion on how to perform these verifications
based on a generic geometry found in many plants, from petrochemical to nuclear, which emphasizes some of
theses issues.

1. INTRODUCTION

The ASME code, particularly in its Section III [1], the nuclear one, has specific requirements
on how to assess the results from the stress analyses to make the necessary verifications to
avoid failure. These requirements apply to those equipments (valves, pumps, vessels, piping,
etc.) which are part of the pressure boundary.

The components, as well as the piping in a nuclear power plant, should be classified
accordingly to its nuclear safety classification, as Class 1, Class 2, Class 3 or Class NN (non
nuclear). The project of nuclear equipment classified as Class 1, 2 or 3 should follows the
recommendations given in the sub-sections NB, NC and ND, respectively. The present work
deals with the structural and stress analysis of Class 1 equipment which structural project
should be verified “by analysis” instead of “by rules”. The later is the ‘conventional’ way to
verify a project before the massive use of the numerical methods as the finite element
method. Generally speaking, a Class 1 piping analysis should be performed and its results
analyzed accordingly to the item NB 3600, Section III, of the ASME Code while the analyses
of Class 1 equipment as the Vessels in general (Reactor Pressure Vessel, Steam Generator,
Pressurizer, et.) should follow the item NB-3200 and NB-3300.

Usually, to analyze equipment one uses a model made basically by shell and solid elements
(2D, 3D or axi-symmetric ones). To analyze a piping, besides the general straight and the
curved pipe elements, the analyst has to model some standard parts or fitting as valves, short
radius and long radius curves, Tees, etc. Supports and anchors are also used. Standard curves
and Tees, for instance, have specific stress indices (that behaves like stress concentration
factors) which are experimentally determined as function of the fatigue life reduction with
respect to the straight tube fatigue life. These factors are given by the applicable code,
specifically, in the item NB-3600 for Class 1 nuclear piping.

In some plants the space restriction imposes a compact lay-out with the use of non-standard
items. For those special piping items with non-standardized geometry the piping analysis can
not capture the actual stress state and, therefore, a specific analysis should be performed
using the requirements of the item NB-3200/NB-3300. In this situation, usually the analysis
is performed in two steps. Firstly, the piping is analyzed (and modeled) as usual where the
special item is modeled by rigid straight tubes (with an equivalent cross section and density
to introduce its mass in the model). All model results, except by the special item, should
attend the NB-3600 limits. In the second step the special item is modeled as equipment, with
shell and/or solid elements. Forces and moments from the piping in its interface should be
applied as well as all other loads like pressure and temperature. If the boundary conditions are
not so obvious, the whole piping can be introduced in the model as a super-element. At the
interface solid-tube a rigid region can be created connecting the tube central node with all
nodes in the respective 3D interface. The results (stresses in general) from the special item,
but not the piping super-element results, should be verified against the NB-3200 limits.

This is done because the piping programs have routines to verify the results while the general
purpose programs do not have these routines. In the nuclear area one of the most used
program for piping analysis is the PipeStress [6] while the ANSYS program [4] is largely
used for equipment shell and solid modeling. The ANSYS program has piping elements but it
does not have the post-processing routine to perform the required NB-3600 verifications. And
it should be very expensive and time consuming to develop such tool for a given project. The
results verification against the NB-3200/ NB-3300 limits is not always a direct step. It often
needs an intermediate step called stress linearization in a given section once most of the
limits are in the average stress (membrane stress) or they are in the linear part of the stress
distribution (membrane + bending stress). The total stress is used in the fatigue verification.

Another care that should be taken when using the ASME NB code in the verification of the
results from the stress analysis is the stress classification as Primary and Secondary. The
former is related with the equilibrium equations and their limits are mandatory. Typically,
they are from the mechanical loads. If they are not attended the failure is immediate. The
secondary stresses are related with the compatibility equations. Typically, they are from the
thermal loads and the failure is not immediate and it is, usually, related with the load cycling.

These steps, the stress classification and the stress linearization, are not straightforward ones
and needs some ‘engineering’ judgment to choose the right section to evaluate the stresses in
discontinuities. Often it is necessary to choose several sections looking for that most stressed

INAC 2011, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.

one. And more often, some sections are invalid to perform the classification and linearization
procedure as shown by researchers.

The scope of this work is to describe the second step of the above procedure and to discuss
how to perform these stress verifications using a generic geometry found in many plants,
from petrochemical to nuclear, which emphasizes some of theses issues that arises from the
stress classification and linearization in discontinuities, which are common in the nuclear
area. The chosen geometry is a four-way Wye junction [3], connecting, in the inlet side, three
piping and one piping from the outlet side. All this piping is supposed to be Class 1 from a
nuclear plant. All adopted material properties and loads, as well as, dimensions and lay-out,
are typical for a small nuclear plant.

1.1. Modeled Geometry

The overall lay-out is presented in Fig. 1. It shows the piping parts (modeled as tube
elements: straight and curved ones) and the junction (modeled as rigid tube elements). The
Wye junction itself is presented in Fig. 2. In the inlet side its main dimensions are:
external/internal diameter 219/173 mm. In the outlet side the dimensions are:
external/internal 273 / 216 mm. The junction is about 800 mm high. In both sides the
common dimensions are: straight segment length 160 mm, fillet radius 20 mm.

In the analyzed junction it is supposed to act only the internal pressure and it is isolated from
the piping. This was done to simplify the analysis procedure aiming to strengthening the
discussion on how to classify and linearize the stresses in the discontinuities. With this
hypothesis and considering the double geometric symmetry it is possible to model only ¼ of
the junction.

2. FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

Mesh. The finite element model was developed, and the stress analysis was performed, using
the ANSYS APDL program [4] from a solid model developed in the SolidWorks program [5].
This model was imported to the ANSYS using the parasolid format (extension “.x_t”). The
junction was modeled using the 3D solid isoparametric element named SOLID95 in the
ANSYS element library [4]. This element has quadratic interpolation with three nodes in each
border and it has 20 nodes in its basic form and can be degenerated to a prism or a
tetrahedron. If the piping was also to be modeled, the PIPE16 (straight) and the PIPE18
(curved) elements should be used.

The mesh was generated defining, initially, an element size (13mm) and, for some lines,
chosen by visual inspection, a specific number of divisions were defined. This approach was
done to assure to have, always, at least 5 nodes in a given line across the thickness (this is
represented by at least two elements in the thickness). The generated mesh can be seen in Fig.
3.

Material properties. As material properties it was adopted: Young modulus E = 180 109
N/m2, Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.3, mass density γ = 8500 Kg/m3. These values were taken from
[2] supposing an ASME material used for nuclear applications at a typical design temperature
Tdes = 350 °C. At this temperature the reference stress and the yield stress are, respectively,
Sm = 110,3 MPa and Sy = 122,7 MPa.

INAC 2011, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.

 4-Way
Wye

Figure 1. Lay-out showing the four-way Wye junction as part of a postulated piping.

inlet #2 inlet #2
inlet #1
inlet #3 inlet #1 inlet #3

body body

(a) (b)

outlet outlet

Figure 2. Four-way Wye: (a) solid model, (b) internal view

If other non-mechanical loads are concerned, as thermal ones, a thermal expansion coefficient
α = 17.6 10-6 mm/mm°C should be used to evaluate the thermal strain and stresses. (In an
actual situation there are other loads as dead weight, earthquake, thermal transients, etc. To
consider the dead weight for instance, the water and thermal isolation should be considered
besides the steel density. To do so, an equivalent density should be calculated and it can reach
values around γeq = 11000 Kg/m3.)

Loads. As mentioned before, for this analysis, the only load considered was the internal
pressure with a typical value, Pint = 15 MPa applied on all internal surfaces. Besides this load,
and to be coherent with the physical and mechanical behavior of a vessel under internal
pressure, some “closing forces” should be applied at the openings which work like nozzles.
These ‘forces’ were applied as longitudinal stresses which, for this particular situation, reach

INAC 2011, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.

Pr/(2.t) ≈ 32 MPa in all the four openings (P is the internal pressure, r and t are the mean
radius and the pipe thickness at each opening).

Boundary conditions. Considering the assumed double symmetry, once the only applied
load is the internal pressure, the imposed displacements were those related with the
symmetries in the nodes on the symmetry planes (at X = 0 and at Y = 0). The nodes on the
model bottom part were restrained in the Z direction.

Model continuity and compatibility. In an actual situation, the piping would be connected
to this 3D model as depicted in Fig. 1 and the closing forces would be still necessary to make
the model continuity and compatibility (the piping elements consider these forces in their
formulation but not the 3D elements). And the imposed displacements would not be applied
as described above and depicted in Fig. 3 but, instead, they would be applied in the piping
extremities (as shown in Fig. 1). Special care should be taken at the interface solid-tube:
besides the closing forces, a rigid region should be defined connecting the piping node
(‘master’) with all nodes in the respective 3D interface (‘slave’). This is done using the
ANSYS CERIG command.

Other loads. If there are other loads as dead weight and/or earthquake the symmetry can not
be adopted and the whole model (pipe + 3D elements) should be considered. The dead weight
is automatically considered by the program once a material density is defined and the gravity
acceleration is applied to the model. The seismic loads could be applied in the junction model
as forces and moments that came from the piping analyses due to the response spectrum
analysis, for instance. These forces and moments should be the maximum values obtained in
each direction. In this way, the seismic load parcel due to the junction own weight is not
considered.

Figure 3. ¼ model and mesh adopted and detail with the applied pressure, closing forces
and symmetry conditions in the model upper part

INAC 2011, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.

This is a reasonable hypothesis once in the piping analysis seismic loads this weight was
already considered once the junction was modeled as rigid element with it own mass. This
hypothesis is more exact if the junction, considered isolated, has its first frequency ≥ 33 Hz.
(To superimposed the seismic loads, that came from a response spectra analysis, with the
other loads two load steps are necessary: in the first all the seismic loads are considered with
the positive sign and in the second the seismic loads are considered with the negative sign.)

3. STRESS CLASSIFICATION AND LINEARIZATION

The stress classification is done to identify, basically, the “Primary” (P) and the “Secondary”
(Q) stresses. The former are directly related with the equilibrium equations while the later are
related with the compatibility equations. So, in general, they came respectively from
mechanical and thermal loadings. But in a structural discontinuity there are a stress increasing
due the need of compatibility between the connected parts. So, even for mechanical loads
there are secondary stresses in a given discontinuity.

As the ASME limits [1] are developed aiming to prevent some typical failure modes besides
the Primary and Secondary classification, the stresses should be linearized to obtain the
generalized (Pm) or localized (PL) membrane component, the bending (Pb) and the Peak (F)
stress. This linearization should be done along a cross section of the piping or equipment but
in the discontinuities this section is not so clear. In such a case the stress linearization is done
along a line, the SCL – Stress Classification Line. This problem does not exist in beam
models neither in shell models once these models ‘naturally’ give the stresses separated in
membrane and bending components. The use of stress intensification indexes should be
considered. The problem arises strongly in 3D models which are very common nowadays.

Albuquerque [7] discusses in detail the procedure and equations related with this linearization
procedure considering several situations/sections: plane model (2D), axisymmetric model,
general 3D model and if it is performed on a section, on a line (SCL). The work in ref. [7] is
based on recommendations given by researchers, mainly Hollinger & Hechmer (H&H), after
numerical modeling/analysis performed using several geometries. Their work started in 1985
and their findings had being consolidated in [8, 9, 10].

The average value acting on the whole section/line that is equivalent to the net force acting in
the section due to the actual stress distribution will be classified as Pm or PL depending on the
distance of the section from the discontinuity: Pm for those far sections and PL otherwise.
This PL classification is justified because there is a secondary ‘aspect’ in this stress near a
discontinuity even if it comes from a mechanical load. Eq. (1) defines when a section is near
a discontinuity (d is the section distance from the discontinuity, rm is the average radius and t
the tube thickness).

d ≤ 2.0 rm t (1)

The maximum value of the linear stress distribution which produces a net bending moment
equivalent to the moment produced by the actual stress distribution is called ‘bending stress’
Pb. For mechanical loads, if the section is near a discontinuity this stress component is
classified as secondary, ‘Q’ (once it is due to the deformation compatibility between the
connected parts).

INAC 2011, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.

The difference between the actual stress distribution and the sum of the average and linear
(membrane + bending) stress distributions give an auto-equilibrated stress distribution which
produces neither a net force nor a net moment in the section - which maximum is the so
called “Peak” (F) stress. In a given section, the maximum stress occurs, in general, in one of
its surfaces (internal or external) and it is the sum Pm (or PL) + Pb + F.

The stress classification adopted in the present work, for those sections or SCL where the
stresses were verified, follows the ASME NB Table-3217-1d [1] and to chose the SCL the
recommendations from H&H in [10] are followed, specially its appendix V from which the
Fig. 4 was adapted.

Nozzle Nozzle
(acute (obtuse
side) side)

Vessel shell

(a) Geometry (b) Potential ring boundaries (SCL)

Figure 4. Nozzle to cylinder analyzed geometry in the WRC 429 (adapted from [10])

Taking the geometric configuration depicted in Fig 4 one can notice that the ring boundaries
vary around the circumference of the nozzle-shell junction. In [10] H&H analyzed several
options for these boundaries definitions based on two approaches: one minimizing the size of
the ring and other maximizing as it can be seen in Fig. 4(b). To evaluate each possible
boundary, they used the component stress distributions along each line/boundary to determine
its consistency with the shell stress distributions which means, the validity of the SCL.

H&H evaluated the SCL in the acute side and in the obtuse side based on (a) SI (stress
intensity) and principal stresses and (b) component stress distribution along the lines. As an
example of the later, the distribution of the hoop stress should be nearly linear and the
bending should be low (in special for those lines that are radial to the vessel), the shear stress
should show low values and a parabolic distribution, and the radial stress should be also
nearly linear with low values (if the line is perpendicular to the surface, the stress inside the
internal surface should be compressive and equal to the internal pressure and in the external
surface it should be zero).

In the present work the three tubes in the junction have the same diameter and thickness (Fig.

INAC 2011, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.

2) while the geometry analyzed by H&H represents the junction of a small nozzle at an angle
to the shell axis (Fig. 4). However, the late represents well the difficulties to establish the
SCL to perform the Code verifications and, so, in the present work the H&H main
conclusions will be used as a guide to establish the SCL in the four-way Wye junction, mainly
in the acute sides.

Considering the main piping dimensions in the analyzed geometry, the minimum distance to
consider a given section (or SCL) far from a discontinuity is ≈95mm for the inlets and it is
≈118mm for the outlet side. These values are adopted also for the ‘body’ part of the Wye (see
Fig. 2). So, only in the middle of the inlet #2 (the central one) where the arriving piping is
considered to be aligned with the Wye piping segment (see Fig. 1) there could be a section or
SCL where the stresses should be classified as Pm. In all other section the averaged stress
should be classified as PL once the section is near a discontinuity (and the bending linear
component should be classified as Q (secondary), see Table-3217-1d [1].

Limits and Verifications. The allowable values for each type of stress (Pm or PL, PL±Pb,
P+Q, PL±Pb+Q+F) are derived from the basic allowable - Sm - at the working temperature.
To stay within the scope of this work and to be coherent with the applied load (pressure), only
the primary stress (Pm, PL and PL±Pb) will be verified. So, accordingly to Fig. NB-3221-1
and NB-3222-1 of the ASME NB [1] the due verifications and their limits are:
Pm ≤ Sm = 110.0 MPa; PL ≤ 1,5Sm = 165.0 MPa; PL ± Pb ≤ 1.5Sm = 165.0 MPa.

The indicated limits are for the so-called Design Condition. When the Operational Conditions
are verified the pressure and temperature are lower, but the earthquake should be considered,
the limits are slightly different as well as the Sm value (which depends on the temperature).
For more information and details, see NB 3223.a.1 [1].

Sections to Linearize, Classify and Verify the Stresses. Ten sections or SCL were chosen to
linearize and classify the stresses, to cover all critical parts and regions in the analyzed
geometry, aiming to verify them against the Code limits. These sections are shown in Fig. 6
where they are named PATH_xx where ‘xx’ is the section number.

From above, the section #01 (e.g., PATH_01 in Fig. 6) is the only one which averaged stress
should be classified as Pm (general membrane stress) while for all other sections the average
stress should be classified as PL (localized membrane). This is a conservative approach once
this stress is affected by the discontinuity and there is a parcel on it that came from the
deformation compatibility. Other conservative approach, widely used in 3D solid models, is
the stress linearization along a line through the thickness instead of their linearization in a
section. The sections 06 and 07 were chosen to comply with the criteria in the Appendix V of
the WRC 429 Bulletin [10]. It should be pointed that the sections 02 to 10 are not suitable to
stress linearization, accordingly the appendix V of ref. [10], once they are directly on the
transitions. Again, following [10], if one wants to verify the stresses in the transition, the
sections 05 and 06 are better than the section 07 to perform the stress linearization.

The bending stress will be classified as Secondary (Q) and it will not be discussed in this
work. Their verification should also consider the stresses from variable loads and loads that
produce secondary stress (as the thermal ones). That means, including fatigue verification,
other set of analysis which is out of this work scope.

INAC 2011, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.

 4. ANALYSIS RESULTS

In a point under a stress tensor with six different components the Tresca equivalent stress, SI
– Stress Intensity, is defined as in Eq. (2). The Tresca stress (and not the von Mises one) is
adopted by the ASME Code Section III Sub-Section NB [1]. Fig. 5 shows the ¼ model
expanded to form ½ of the analyzed four-way Wye under internal pressure while Fig. 6 shows
the SI (Stress Intensity) distribution in the upper region of the Wye with the superimposed
sections. In both Figures, the stress scales (in N/m2) were manually defined. (In actual
situations the stress field will not be symmetrical due to the other loads and the asymmetry
introduced by the piping which will not allow a ¼ or even a ½ model.)

SI = max(|σ1-σ2|, |(|σ2-σ3|, |(|σ1-σ3|) (2)

Linearized Stresses. Figures 7 and 8 show the typical graphic form to present the
linearization results for sections 1 to 8 in terms of the SI stress. In its post-processor module
the ANSYS program can linearize the stresses along a given section defined by two points –
the SCL. It linearizes all six stress components (SX, SY, SZ, SXY, SYZ, SXZ). Also, the
Tresca (SINT) and von Mises (SEQV) equivalent stresses can be presented. To perform the
linearization the program considers 50 internal points along the SCL. With this procedure, the
Membrane (average), the Bending (linear), the Membrane ± Bending, the Peak stress, besides
the total stress, are calculated and presented in table as well in graphical form.

Figure 5. SI stresses (N/m2) in the ¼ 3D solid model expanded to one-half.

INAC 2011, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.

 01

02

06
07

Figure 6. Stress Intensity (SI) distribution (N/m2) in the ¼ model upper part

One can notice, looking at the results for sections 1 to 7, presented in Fig. 7, how the stress
distribution becomes irregular and far from the theoretical linear distribution as one
approaches and go ‘inside’ the geometry transition, as discussed in [7 - 10].

Primary Stresses Verification. Table 1 shows the verifications performed in every one of the
10 defined sections in terms of Pm, PL and PL±Pb (Primary stress) as well as their limits and
the ratio (in percentage) between the stress and its limit. All values are within the respective
Section III Sub-Section NB ASME Code [1] limits.

x104 x104
N/m2 N/m2

Section 01 Section 02

cm cm

Figure 7a. Stress linearization – Sections 01 & 02

INAC 2011, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.

 x104 x104
N/m2 N/m2

Section 03 Section 04

cm cm

x104 x104
N/m2 N/m2

Section 05 Section 06

cm cm

x104 x104 (N/m2)

N/m2

Section 08
Section 07

cm cm

Figure 7b. Stress linearization – Sections 03 to 08

Table 1. Stress Verification (MPa)

Section # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Limit
Pm 60.0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 110,0
PL --- 54.8 57.7 60.5 67.9 106. 128. 55.8 48.0 24.2 165,0
PL±PB 67.7 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 165,0
σactual/σlimit (%) 55 | 41 33 35 37 41 64 78 34 29 15 -----

INAC 2011, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.

 5. CONCLUSIONS

The paper described the second step of a nuclear piping analysis with a non-standard item
when the item should be modeled as a 3D solid with its verification done according to the
Sub-section NB 3300 of the ASME Code instead of the NB-3600 one. The used geometry is
one that can be found in many plants, from petrochemical to nuclear however, the ‘nuclear
focus’ was adopted. Only the primary stresses due to the internal pressure were considered
once the scope is to emphasize some of the issues that arise from the stress classification and
linearization in discontinuities, which are common in the nuclear area and it is still an open
issue. Along with the modeling, analysis and verification a discussion on how to perform the
Code verifications was presented, pointing some differences between the present (simplified)
analysis, just one load – pressure, and an actual one, with several applied loads.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are grateful to their institution, Nuclear and Energy Research Institute, IPEN-
CNEN/SP, for the support given for this work, as well as to Dr. Ana Faloppa for some helpful
hints about the English text.

REFERENCES

1. 2007 ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1, Subsection NB –
Class 1 Components.
2. 2007 ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section II, Part D – Properties (Materials).
3. Idelchick I. E., Handbook of Hydraulic Resistence, 3rd ed., 2005, JPH.
4. ANSYS APDL v11.0, ANSYS Structural Analysis Guide & Theory Reference Manual
5. SOLIDWORKS Premium 2010 SP4.0, Dassault Systems.
6. PIPESTRESS User’s Manual, Version 3.6.2, DST Computer Services, 2009
7. Albuquerque, L. B., “Stress Categorization in Nozzle to Pressure Vessel Connections
Finite Element Models” (in Portuguese). MsC Dissertation, 1999, USP/SP.
8. Hollinger, G. L.; Hechmer, J. L.., Phase 1 Report: Three Dimensional Stress Criteria,
PVRC Grants 89-16 and 90-13, New York, NY, 1991.
9. Hechmer, J. L., Hollinger, G. L., Three Dimensional Stress Evaluation Guidelines
Progress Report, PVP, 1994.
10. WRC 429, J. L. Hechmer, G. L. Hollinger, 1998. “3D Stress Criteria – Guidelines for
Application”. Welding Research Council, Inc., Bulletin WRC 429, ISSN 0043-2326 /
ISBN 1-58145-436-8, Feb. 1998, Welding Research Council, Inc., N. York, USA.

INAC 2011, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.